Heard Dr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners who are Licensed Document Writers duly authorised to draft documents under the U.P. Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the ratio of grant of licence to the eligible persons has to be maintained as per the number specified in Rule-3 of the U.P. Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977, which has been violated as a result whereof the same has disadvantageously affected the petitioners in their earnings. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a clear statutory violation and thus the licences granted in excess of the number as provided for under Rule- 3 deserves to be cancelled.
To substantiate his submission learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the number of licensees have to be fixed as per the ratio of the documents presented for registration in the previous year in the office concerned. Learned counsel submits that the calculation on the basis of Rule-3 about document registered in the preceding year is not correct then in such circumstances any grant of license to persons over and above the said number deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to urge that according to the case set up by the respondents themselves the figures clearly indicate viz a viz the definition of the term documents defined in Rule- 3 that the number of licenses now granted is in excess of the said ratio. The total number of documents as reflected by the respondents themselves, therefore, based on an erroneous calculation of including other documents than those registered, and secondly on account of the ratio having been disturbed, the direction as prayed for deserves to be issued.
The third argument of Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent themselves had admitted in a previous W.P.No.2298 of 1998 that moving of other applications is not apart of the job of Document Writers and in such circumstances calculation of miscellaneous applications and other documents for the purpose of Rule 3 is totally misplaced. It is urged that in paragraph 11 of the said counter affidavit a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure R.A-1, the admission of the respondents clearly supports the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Replying to the said contention, learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 2 (b) to contend that the word document means all documents inclusive of such applications as referred to therein. He, therefore, submits that the calculation given in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit including such applications does not suffer from any factual infirmity in order to give any cause of action to the petitioner vis a vis the ratio of the number of Document Deed Writers licensed in the office of Sub Registrar.
It is further submitted that after due consideration the representation of the petitioner was disposed of and a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and having perused Rules as well as the documents on record what we find is that the case requires an interpretation with regard to the reference to Rule 3 read with rule 2(b) of the 1977 rules that are extracted hereinunder:-
3. Number of document writers- The Licensing Authority shall, from time to time, fix the number of document writers for each registration office in the district, in consultation with the Sub Registrar concerned but the number of such document writers shall not exceed 3 for every, 1,000 documents presented for registration in the previous year in the office concerned. If, at any time, the Licensing Authority finds that the number of document writers in any office is in excess of the number so fixed, it shall reduce their number by cancelling the licenses of those who have come last.
2 (b)"Documents" means a document written for presentation to a registering officer and includes an application for copy. Inspection, search, extension of period and issue of summons of warrants and an application under Section 73 or a memorandum of appeal under Section 72 to the Registration Act, 1908 or a draft of the said documents;
This has further to be read in accordance with the the terms and conditions of licenses as provided for in Form -II. The same is extracted here in under:-
FORM II License for writing documents [Sec Rule 5] Number of license..........
Name and address of document writer.....
Place where the holder of this licence shall practice as document writer.........
This licence entitles the document writer to practice as a document writer, subject to the provisions of the U.P Document Writers Licensing Rules, 1977 and terms and conditions of this licence...........
Licence is valid for.........
Conditions.
(i)The licensee shall attend the office regularly during the office hours.
(ii)The licensee shall not charge fees for writing and/or drafting of documents, applications, etc, in excess of what is laid down in Rule 10 of the U.P. Document Writer Licensing Rules, 1977, a copy of which shall be kept by him and shown to the parties, if demanded.
(iii)The license shall not make any demand from parties in the name of any person or persons connected with the office or accept any sums on their behalf.
(iv) The licensee shall write documents legibly and observe the instructions relating to the writing of documents.
(v)The licensee shall instruct registrants to present documents and pay fees themselves to the registering officer and not through touts or any other agency. He will also not pay the registration fees in the registration office on behalf of the registrants.
(vi) The licensee shall comply with any direction that may be given to him by registering authority in regard to writing of documents.
(vii)Violation of any of the above conditions will render this licence liable to be cancelled.
A perusal of the form of license entails conditions and condition no. (ii) and (iv) clearly indicate that a licensee shall not charge fee for writing and or drafting of documents, applications etc. in excess of what is laid down in Rule 10 and shall write them legibly and observe all instructions relating to documents.
Similarly Rule-(vi) also mentions the ward documents vis a vis the aforesaid terms and conditions of the license. The terms and conditions of the said license therefore also envisages a license which is valid for moving of applications apart from the deeds which are presented for registration, and as included in the definition of the word document as per rule 2 (b). In such circumstances the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per rule 3 it is only deeds that are presented for registration would fall for consideration and no other document does not hold water as the word document would also include all applications which a license holder is authorised to move as per the terms and conditions of the license. The applications are also to be written, and even if on a printed performa, they are required to be legible and appropriately filled up.
The license is therefore not only for deed writing but also a valid license for the purpose of applications as defined rule 2 (b). Rule 3 and Rule 2 (b) have therefore to be read harmoniously for calculating the number of documents for the purpose of grant of license.
The job of a deed writer is not confined to deeds and documents presented for registration but also to move applications etc as per the terms and conditions extracted above. On the other hand it is a license and not a grant of monopoly in favour of a few restricted persons. The ratio provided is a check on in-discriminate grant of license and to prevent any over crowding. By itself, Rule 3 does not create any corresponding substantive right in favour of the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid position that emerges the reliance placed on paragraph 11 of the counter in W.P.No.2298 of 1998 does not reflect the correct position of law and we do not agree with the same. Consequently in view of the aforesaid findings having been recorded the calculation made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit in the present writ petition cannot be faulted with on the ground that it is also includes applications other then registered documents.
The aforesaid conclusion having been drawn, the issue of any disadvantageous position being suffered by the petitioners does not call for any consideration. We are accordingly not inclined to issue the writ as prayed for. This would however not amount to construe that the figures given by the respondents would be permanent in nature for the purpose of the plea raised here in as much as filing of the documents can vary from year to year and the calculation as per Rule-3 has to be made as per the previous year. Consequently if any other figure is pointed out in respect of the total number of applications against the ratio in Rule 3, in future, it shall be open to the competent authority to revise its order accordingly.
With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2016 Shahnaz